February 27, 2015

Net neutrality = Government and UN control of the Internet. Period.

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder

Net neutrality has been adopted by a narrow margin. So what is it?

Simply put, it hands control of the Internet to the government -- and possibly even the United Nations.

Billionaire tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban says net neutrality will grind innovation to a halt by stifling the very free-wheeling nature of the Web that made it great.

Even one FCC commissioner says the measure is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I explain how net neutrality could start to affect you very soon:

JOIN our fast-growing crowdfunding project -- and enjoy cool perks!

READ Brian Lilley's latest book, "CBC Exposed" -- It's been called "the political book of the year"

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-03-02 18:26:01 -0500
The Democrats pushed this, so that has to tell you something. Net neautrality was a trojan horse to regulate the internet. Don’t get caught up in the technical discussion about ISPs throttling access. It is all about giving the government the ability to now censor. This will affect us ALL.
commented 2015-02-28 15:59:21 -0500
i supposed you would interpret it thusly.
commented 2015-02-28 15:55:58 -0500
In other words, you can’t answer. Okay. Just wanted to clear that up.
commented 2015-02-28 15:42:53 -0500
there’s no point. you’ve made so many errors in your assumptions, and have so frequently demonstrated your arrogance, that it would be a futile exercise. sometimes the best thing to do with people like you, who are so entrenched in their thinking, is to walk away. i wish you enlightenment.
commented 2015-02-28 15:38:55 -0500
That was highly informative Galt. Really great stuff. Now, instead of misunderstanding what I said, why don’t you directly answer the questions I posited?
commented 2015-02-28 15:36:05 -0500
i could say the same of you. have some humility, you might learn something once in a while.
commented 2015-02-28 15:35:01 -0500
“Galt”, you’re really going out of your way to avoid trying to understand what I’m saying, aren’t you? That’s the mark of the truly stupid.
commented 2015-02-28 14:47:12 -0500
i can see you’re becoming hysterical here, so i’ll be brief so as to move us out of the weeds of this discussion. for the analogy to truly work, the internet should be a public utility. is that what you want?
commented 2015-02-28 14:37:05 -0500
“John Galt” LISTEN to me here! It is IMPOSSIBLE to build your own road then way we define roads as infrastructure to travel from place to place. To say that you can build your own road on your own property is moot and serves only to attempt to undermine a legitimate analogy . And yes, the road analogy is PRECISELY the kind of analogy that makes sense.

The Internet works HOW? Through wires, radio-waves and electrical signals. How are those electrical signals generated? They are generated by computers who talk to an ISP that re-routs the signal to its destination. Who owns the rights to those wires? The ISP’s do because they either provide them or acquired the use of them somehow at a cost to them. We as individuals cannot build our own internet infrastructure just like we cannot build our own roads.

Okay what does that have to do with roads? Roads are no good unless vehicles drive on them. Individuals or companies own those vehicles and they have to pay for them so they can use the roads. Gasoline taxes (ISP fees)are used to pay for the maintenance and building of the roads (at least, that’s the premise, truth be told only a small portion of the gas taxes are used on roads!) Just like computers and ISP’s have to use the wires or airwaves (requiring powerful radio-transmitters or satellites that someone has to pay for) just like vehicles use roads. The wires are no good without the “vehicles” used to push the signals through those wires just as roads are nearly useless without having vehicles to travel on them. Now, if you want to ask the question “why can’t I just be my own ISP and send my own signal across those wires without a separate ISP?”?, then please enlighten me on that one. But, if that were possible, so that you could use the Internet without a secondary provider, would Net Neutrality help or hinder you? Well, I don’t see how it could do other than hinder you, because if you could do it without a secondary ISP then you would be able to find whatever you want and send whatever you want any time you want. ANY regulation AT ALL would therefore reduce that freedom. Capiche?
commented 2015-02-28 14:05:49 -0500
there are places where i couldn’t build a road, sure, but to say it’s “impossible” is demonstrably false, since there are other places without zoning restrictions where i could. i think you’re probably better off dropping the road analogy because it isn’t helping our argument against net neutrality. there’s no reason why we have to allow governments to build and maintain roads. as a society we decided to allow this, and we’re probably better off for it. but i’d advise you don’t use that analogy. you’ll get someone coming along saying that in our modern society, the internet is just an important as basic infrastructure, and you’ll have the government providing internet to everybody, and all that entails.
commented 2015-02-28 13:56:13 -0500
I will respect people’s “views”, (like what painting looks good on a wall or what food tastes good).But I will not respect ignorance and stupidity when it pertains to facts. I have no tolerance for misinformation and/or lies. So when I tell someone they are stupid for thinking the government should control the internet that’s not name calling, that’s a scientifically accurate description of their condition.

BTW “John Galt”, try building your own road from Montreal to Toronto. can’t be done. Also, you CAN’T even build a “road” on your own property now unless you fall under certain zoning laws (controlled by governmetn) or have government permission to do so. Go ahead. Try it. You’re not even allowed to cut a tree down on your own property in some places unless you have government permission. You’re also not allowed to keep a gun in your own house without government permission. So that argument is moot as well.
commented 2015-02-28 12:42:47 -0500
Your welcome, John. Here is just one more link pertaining to “net neutrality” on Forbes.com. No video ,just 2 pages of common sense expose:


Don’t forget to listen to Brian Lilley’s latest podcast he made for “The Blaze” listeners. He touches on several subjects including “net neutrality” in the first and last segment of his podcast. Brilliant, as usual!
commented 2015-02-28 12:27:25 -0500
thanks carmen. it’s getting kind of hot in this comment thread. thanks for the links too. i find fox is generally a pretty objective source.

james small: i believe businesses should have the Freedom to do anything they want to, but it’s not true that “it’s impossible for anyone to own their own road.” of course a person can own their own road. i can build a road on my own private property. and i could do whatever i wanted with it.
commented 2015-02-28 11:01:16 -0500
Brad, if your stupid enough to think that something someone else produces should be your RIGHT to access, use or acquire, then you are the definition of an idiot. You have NO RIGHT to access or control or use something that someone else creates. We make exceptions to things like roads, because it’s impossible for anyone to own their own road, and it’s built for everyone to use whether you drive on it or not, as even if you use a sidewalk, your groceries are delivered using roads. It’s a basic infrastructure, and you don’t need to infringe on someone else’s property to use it. The Internet is not the same. The Internet requires a service provider created by those who provide the service of access. To say that you have a RIGHT to access the internet is stupid, because that would mean that someone would be obligated to provide you with the machine (computer or similar device) to access it since you can’t use it without such a machine. So if access to the internet is a right, then when are ignorant fools like you gonna start demanding that the taxpayer give you a computer too? Because, after all, if you don’t have a computer, you would be denied the “right” to access the internet. What the hell is it with people? I’m obviously correct when I make the case that 90% of the population are idiots when it comes to politics and understanding how society is supposed to work.
commented 2015-02-28 10:27:04 -0500
James, you clearly have no idea of the history of the “internet” we know today or how it was developed or how it works. Access to the “internet” as we know it today was developed for resource sharing. The early stages of the “internet” made available information to the user to access information from anywhere in the world, like no other time in the history of humanity. It should be a right, people can access most of of our great works of art, history, and discuss important issues. Children that live in remote areas can receive education that would otherwise be impossible. The access to all human history at your fingertips should be available to anyone, anywhere.
Government agencies have been involved one way or another since day one. Relax.
It is the corporations who figured out how to make money from the internet who now want to control it. That is what net neutrality is….keeping the internet as it is..right now…today..the US just adopted the system we in Canada already have.
No conspiracies, No hidden agenda
Good luck to you sir.
commented 2015-02-28 09:06:05 -0500
Carmen, yeah, that’s kinda what I was getting at :-)
commented 2015-02-28 08:53:29 -0500
James, if the government forces ALL businesses and other entities into a narrow lane of control then government WILL be able to control more and more aspects of everyone’s lives, especially pertaining to the internet. Worldwide. Ultimately, the U.N. as Lilley pointed out wants to be the king pin of this latest leftist scam.

All one needs to know is, ‘If it’s the Left’s idea, it’s bad. PERIOD!’
commented 2015-02-28 08:16:30 -0500
Let’s make this clear once and for all….

FACT: ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IS NOT A RIGHT!!!! It’s a product that you can use if you have the means.



Now, what would you rather have? Freedom to associate with the businesses a your discretion that can provide what you want, or have the government force you to pay for restriction on REAL freedom?

EVERYONE needs to ponder those facts. NOW WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!
commented 2015-02-28 00:10:03 -0500
Remember how the CRTC sandbagged Sun News Network? How SNN was denied a mandatory carriage license (which CBC and CTV have), without which it was only a matter of time before SNN went off the air? Now imagine the internet being controlled in a similar manner, so that ‘undersirable’ websites, like, say, TheRebel, will be forced to conform to a set of standards (you can imagine what they will be) that a CRTC-like beauracracy will enforce upon it, or be forced off the internet. This is what Obama has in mind for the internet in the USA. Total control by his administration. Now imagine Canada going the same route under either Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau. Not hard to imagine, is it? In fact, I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Stephen Harper went for it at some point. His CINO government did nothing to ensure that SNN would stay on the air. Why? Because SNN was too conservative and held Harper’s gov’t to a standard of conservatism it couldn’t or wouldn’t meet. For example, SNN regularly embarrassed the gov’t over its snivelling annual 1 billion dollar bailout of the CBC, apparently Harper’s favorite channel, the one he gave year end interviews to while SNN got the snub every year from him… Go TheRebel!
commented 2015-02-27 20:08:54 -0500
Thanks Guy Fraser, this is an important issue and it is being politicized. Some people say that they would prefer “a corporation” to be “in charge”. I guess, I hope it is a billionaire that wants to supports your views.
There is the problem, people are missing the point, in Canada the internet is a public utility and the CRTC does have regulatory control, so far they have taken a “hands off approach”. WAIT, before you start typing a nasty message! I am just explaining how things are. I am no fan of the CRTC and it is an outdated institution that should not have political appointees, let us vote for those members of the board. We basically have net neutrality now “basically”, there is definite room for improvement, the US basically just adopted the system we have now “basically”. Which is controlled by government regulation. WAIT, before you start typing a nasty message! Those are boards/panels controlled by the government, which we can vote in our candidates to ensure that the “internet” you know and love stays the same. That the data for this website is treated like any other data. That is why you are reading the Rebel page right now. Because, Rogers, Bell, Telus are not allowed to block Ezra or slow down his data or charge him more, etc. Time to slow down the conspiracy theories, the government regulates things all the time, so keeping it within the government we can hold them to account, if a corporation is in control you have no rights to see their “books”, let’s get elected members on the CRTC panel and keep these people honest, otherwise so far so good, the US is just doing the same thing…that is all…I will await your vitorol
commented 2015-02-27 16:39:50 -0500
Anyone who is for net neutrality will soon be disappointed. Has anyone wondered, since barry took office, why he wants to be in control of EVERYTHING? It’s simple. He wants to remove as much freedom as he can from the American people. That and the real possibility of martial law before he is out of office, the muslims in the US who love him and he and his minions stirring up racial tension to the point of an all out war, we are in a dangerous situation. I believe he intends to declare martial law, turn the internet off to end our conversations about how to stop him, and ask his muslim cousins to join the blacks to wipe out white people in the US. Read the handwriting on the wall. This country is in trouble.
commented 2015-02-27 15:40:06 -0500
i disagree, Guy. i think any concept of net neutrality is dangerous, since it infringes on someone’s freedom. if my internet provider (e.g. Bell) wants to make their streaming service run faster, and make traffic from Netflix run more slowly, why should the government intervene. i ask customer have the Freedom to go with someone else, like Rogers. if Rogers does the same thing with their streaming service (i think it’s Shomi?), i can go to the next one. and then the one after that. if i run out of providers, the market forces will respond to people like me and another internet provider will be created! companies are just people, and people should be Free to do what they want!
commented 2015-02-27 15:06:40 -0500
I need to clarify my position on Net Neutrality :
The Net Neutrality talked about by Governments and Corporations is not the same as the Net Neutrality supported by the progenitors of the Concept.
Thank You Brad Fossheim fro the video, reminding me what it is supposed to be about.
commented 2015-02-27 15:02:09 -0500
with Net Neutrality the government will soon enough require us all to register our identities and give up our freedom to decide what we can and cannot see and say. Canadians will be muzzled. media outlets expressing Truth and defending true Freedom will be hamstrung. that is why we all need to dig deep and support outlets like Therebel.media. you don’t have to be wealthy to contribute— and consider the value your dollar is making!!
commented 2015-02-27 14:57:03 -0500
Sure James. Everyone should have equal access to the Internet and freedom of content as allowed by law. If business limits equal access they should be constrained by the government. If government limits freedom of content they should be constrained by the constitution and Bill of Rights
commented 2015-02-27 14:57:03 -0500
Access to information is NOT a RIGHT or there would be a Library Warehouse on every corner.
Some people move to Low Density Suburbs far away from Municipal Centers and expect access and rates the same as High Density Urban areas but it was there choice to move and it costs a lot more to supply internet service to them, so they SHOULD pay MORE.
Freeloaders want FREE Internet included in there Welfare Plan.
commented 2015-02-27 14:56:49 -0500
Net Neutrality will not equalize access or price to every square inch of the planet, nor will it even provide equal opportunity to read or publish information. Net Neutrality is Government Legislated Censorship and Surveillance. DON’T be fooled by the name.